You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Taylor v. State

Citations: 507 N.E.2d 978; 1987 Ind. LEXIS 924Docket: No. 485S180

Court: Indiana Supreme Court; May 20, 1987; Indiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appellant, originally convicted of a Class A felony robbery at the age of sixteen, who sought post-conviction relief after his conviction was upheld on direct appeal. In his petition for relief, the appellant requested a change of venue, resulting in the appointment of a three-judge panel. The appellant and the State each struck a judge from the panel, leading to the appointment of Judge RT. Green as the special judge. However, Judge Green qualified fifteen days after appointment, exceeding the ten-day requirement under Trial Rule 79(5). The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of Judge Green due to this delay, which the post-conviction court initially dismissed without explanation. The appellate court found that the special judge's failure to timely qualify, paired with the appellant’s timely objection, voided the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court was deemed void, and the case was remanded for a new hearing on the merits. The court noted that rules were later amended to allow a special judge twenty days to qualify, effective May 19, 1987. The decision was supported unanimously by Justices DeBruler, Givan, Pivarnik, and Dickson.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction of Special Judge under Trial Rule 79(5)

Application: The special judge must qualify within the timeframe stipulated by Trial Rule 79(5) for the court to maintain jurisdiction.

Reasoning: Judge Green qualified on February 21, 1984, which was fifteen days after his appointment, exceeding the ten-day requirement set by Trial Rule 79(5).

Timely Objection to Jurisdiction

Application: A timely objection to a special judge's untimely qualification can render subsequent legal actions void due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasoning: Taylor objected to the jurisdiction of Judge Green due to this delay, arguing that it rendered subsequent actions void.

Void Judgments for Lack of Jurisdiction

Application: A judgment made by a court lacking jurisdiction is considered void and subject to remand for a proper hearing.

Reasoning: The court determined that the special judge lacked jurisdiction because Taylor's timely objection to the failure to qualify within the stipulated timeframe invalidated the special judge's authority.